Slashdot Mirror


California Blue Whales Rebound From Whaling

vinces99 writes: The number of California blue whales has rebounded to near historical levels, according to new research (abstract) by the University of Washington, and while the number of blue whales struck by ships is likely above allowable U.S. limits, such strikes do not immediately threaten that recovery. This is the only population of blue whales known to have recovered from whaling – blue whales as a species having been hunted nearly to extinction. Blue whales – nearly 100 feet in length and weighing 190 tons as adults – are the largest animals on Earth and the heaviest ever, weighing more than twice as much as the largest known dinosaur, the Argentinosaurus. They are an icon of the conservation movement and many people want to minimize harm to them, according to Trevor Branch, UW assistant professor of aquatic and fishery sciences. California blue whales, most visible while feeding 20 to 30 miles off the California coast, range from the equator to the Gulf of Alaska. Today they number about 2,200, according to monitoring by other research groups, which is likely about 97 percent of the historical levels.

91 comments

  1. California needed the money!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Dice Clay

    1. Re:California needed the money!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Global Warming!

  2. Thanks to the crew of the Starship Enterprise by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wessels.

    1. Re:Thanks to the crew of the Starship Enterprise by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Those where Humpback whales not Blue whales. Turn in your geek card for making a faulty STOS reference.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Thanks to the crew of the Starship Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to be pendantic and point out those were humpbacks.

    3. Re:Thanks to the crew of the Starship Enterprise by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Humpbacks are like the Ocean's PR department. They happily make a huge spectacle of themselves. They do this without any human intervention. No cages or trainers are required.

      They just do it all by themselves...

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Thanks to the crew of the Starship Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you said "Wesleys" and was annoyed.

    5. Re:Thanks to the crew of the Starship Enterprise by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Then why are they [the humpbacks] not bouncing back? The PR departments of today [especially outside tech] are not exactly small!

  3. See?! by CaptainLard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its totally possible to make changes in human behavior to minimize or reverse destructive impacts on ecosystems. Obviously every scenario will be different but lets keep it up!

    1. Re:See?! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No amount of successes of environmentalism will ever be accepted will ever be accepted by the sorts that think this next measure is clearly unnecessary. In fact, once it works, they'll go back to denying the rather important sciences of the previous ones, if DDT is anything to go by.

      I don't know if it's possible to convince anti-environmental nutbars, but I have every reason to believe some douchebag will show up any second after this post to tell me how "silent spring was propoganda".

    2. Re:See?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These humongous beasts are devastating to the krill community! I know they're not as cute as lobsters, but for god's sake, won't someone THINK OF THE KRILL?

    3. Re:See?! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Informative

      And here's Murphy's douchebag, right on schedule.

      Science right in your face.

      DDT bans did exactly what they said they would.

      (Also DDT is still in use for malaria control, not that we have that in the US where it's banned).

      I have no delusions that I convinced you of anything. But it's nice to have someone to smack down for being a perfect example when they must have known I had this sort of evidence handy..

    4. Re:See?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... are you implying that the threat of sanctions, prison and ultimately force is coming from non-humans?

      Because generally speaking it's a change in behavior of someone who previously didn't make threats begins making threats.

    5. Re:See?! by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think one could make the case that police and politicians are some species besides human.

    6. Re:See?! by pthisis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're comparing raptors and protozoans, there.

      It could easily be true that both eagle populations recovered _and_ thousands of people died of malaria because of DDT restrictions (especially pre-2006, when the WHO endorsed the use of DDT to fight malaria). It could also be true that DDT can save lives by reducing malaria rates and also has a negative impact on fertility in humans and is carcinogenic and potentially carries other health risks.

      It is true that Carson never advocated for banning DDT and that the anti-malarial effects have been overstated by some, but it's probably also true that negative press surrounding DDT caused many deaths (though nowhere near Michael Crichton's "worse than Hitler" assessment).

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    7. Re:See?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its totally possible to make changes in human behavior to minimize or reverse destructive impacts on ecosystems. Obviously every scenario will be different but lets keep it up!

      This is also misleading. Almost all the blue whales are gone, and remain critically endangered.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...

      While applauding the success of the conservation efforts in the California region, the scientists are well aware that not all whale populations have managed to rebound. In Antarctica, blue whales are at approximately 1% of their historic numbers.

      "California blue whales are recovering because we took actions to stop catches and start monitoring," said Cole Monnahan, "If we hadn't, the population might have been pushed to near extinction - an unfortunate fate suffered by other blue whale populations."

    8. Re:See?! by CaptainLard · · Score: 0

      Ha! You trolls are hilarious...and fascinating. So many unrelated individuals all acting pretty much exactly the same. Whats your thought process in posting? "Oh Oh! Let me just type nuh-uh and say names. That will show him good and I will have made my day that much better. I have achieved something today!"

      And because I just can't resist you charming little scamps....one could argue that going from over-whaling to NOT over-whaling does indeed constitute a change regardless of the impetus. Would it pick right back up? Doubtful because the market no longer exists, which funny enough, is also a change.

      In closing I wish you well in your upcoming sophomore year of high school. Feel free to tell all your classmates about the victory you achieved today.

    9. Re: See?! by Redbehrend · · Score: 1

      Even though it's international law several countries still whale... Using "loop holes".. just saying. Though they wouldn't dare go near the US lol

    10. Re:See?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No amount of successes of environmentalism will ever be accepted will ever be accepted

      Probably because it is difficult to isolate the causes of environmental/ecosystem changes, and therefore difficult to claim that human environmental efforts are responsible. In this case, however, making whaling illegal in most places and actually enforcing these laws, are likely helping a great deal.

    11. Re: See?! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Interesting to read your statement, given that whaling in the US is still allowed.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:See?! by mcswell · · Score: 1

      I thought about him. http://studiojsculpts.devianta...

    13. Re:See?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      but it's probably also true that negative press surrounding DDT caused many deaths

      Well no. Press doesn't kill people. People kill people. (See? I can apply that argument to *.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:See?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some problems with the statistics in that first paper, just as an FYI. Regardless of the other two, Carson's original studies were terribly done. Just because later evidence supported them doesn't mean the original studies weren't bad.

      It's also pretty hard to prove that the DDT ban was what caused the rebound in populations. Just because DDT levels went down at the same time populations started going up doesn't mean one caused the other. Some third element, like other environmental regulations that went into place around then, could have caused a population rebound. Since DDT sticks around quite a while, you would expect it to dilute out in the population if there are no more inputs.

  4. Largest on Earth? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Bigger than that old news, Argentinosaurus? Didn't you just get telling me about the Dreadnoughtus schrani?

    Now, 59 metric tons is no 190, I'll warrant you that. But buoyancy is a factor for little boy blue here? Isn't it? :-)

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Largest on Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The blue whale is much larger than the known dinosaurs.

  5. Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known dino by Doofus · · Score: 1, Interesting
    The author of the summary is not up to date on the recent release of info on Dreadnoughtus schrani, now believed to be the largest creature to ever have walked on land.

    See the following:

    http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/September/Dreadnoughtus-Dinosaur/

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/04/world/americas/dreadnoughtus-huge-dinosaur/index.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnoughtus

    --
    If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; ... it invites anarchy. - Brandeis
  6. DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    >> Those where (X) not (Y). Turn in your geek card

    Syntax error in query expression.

    1. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by LWATCDR · · Score: 0

      Ignored do to being a grammar nazi. Real geeks do not care about grammar.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by Talderas · · Score: 2

      It's 'due to' and not 'do to'.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    3. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ignored *due* to being a grammar nazi", I think you mean.

    4. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OH THE IRONIE!

    5. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Irony is like bronzy or goldy, right?

    6. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm ignorant, and I defend my ignorance by claiming it's my right to be stupid. "

      FTFY.

    7. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Oh no, attention to minute detail, and getting pedantic little panties a'bunched is one of the hallmarks of geekdom -- second only to a delusional sense of personal exceptionalism.

    8. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean.

      He's not mean, you insensitive clod, he's just a poor speler.

    9. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      However, the rest of the world does care about grammar. Perhaps that's why geeks have so little power or influence to start with - social rejects are rejected by society...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Real geeks do not care about grammar.

      Obviously, you've never had to write a compiler.

    11. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Real geeks do not care about grammar.

      Obviously, you've never had to write a compiler.

      Real geeks do not care about non-geek's grammar.

      Better?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. Hopefully good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    provided that this isn't immediately used as an excuse to lf whaling restrictions.

    1. Re:Hopefully good news by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      hmmm. You're making me hungry, boy. I want to eat me some whale.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    2. Re:Hopefully good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just ate whale cancer!!!

  8. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by chubs · · Score: 2

    As has already been pointed, out, 190 tons > 65 tons. The author of the summary could well have done his research today, and said "wow. This new article claims that the Dreadnoughtus schrani is roughly 65 tons. If only it had been 2 tons lighter, I could have claimed the blue whale to be 3 times the size of the largest dinosaur, rather than just "more than twice much".
    Yes, it's the largest creature to ever walk on land, but that's only because no whale has ever walked on land.

  9. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you see, the problem here is that Vinces99 is nothing but a no good copy-and-paster. I know that's where most of the summaries come from but he/she/it should have had the good sense to realize what they were thieving is now incorrect and edited it. Otherwise Slashtard Soulskill should have edited it prior to publishing but we know that just ain't gonna happen.

  10. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by chubs · · Score: 2

    Yes, it's the largest creature to ever walk on land, but that's only because no whale has ever walked on land.

    Disclaimer: I have not done any research to substantiate this claim, and I realize it's impossible to prove a negative, but I'm fairly certain there are no documented cases of walking whales.

  11. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    No, I'm afraid you'll see that they were. The creature the summary was talking about is a dinosaur of unconfirmed mass, which likely got a bigger than the new one.

    The dreadnoughtus weighs in at 65 tons.
    The Argentinosaurus weighs in at somewhere in the range of 90-110.

    So your correction doesn't work. Sorry.

  12. The Nimoy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leonard Nimoy nods sagely and vanishes...

    1. Re:The Nimoy by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I'll just make faces.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  13. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by chubs · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's the largest creature to ever walk on land, but that's only because no whale has ever walked on land.

    Disclaimer: I have not done any research to substantiate this claim, and I realize it's impossible to prove a negative, but I'm fairly certain there are no documented cases of walking whales.

    Unless, of course, you count the Vancouver Canucks mascott

  14. Does this mean that we can start whaling again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well?

    1. Re:Does this mean that we can start whaling again? by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 1

      Whale? there ftfy...and no.

      --
      #include bier;
    2. Re:Does this mean that we can start whaling again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe whaling on the moon is perfectly okay....

  15. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

    It's not at all impossible to prove a negative. For example, straightforward observation will prove that as of right now you don't have three hands.

  16. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by quantaman · · Score: 1

    The author of the summary is not up to date on the recent release of info on Dreadnoughtus schrani, now believed to be the largest creature to ever have walked on land.

    Not quite

    Note from the Dreadnoughtus article (emphasis added):
    It is one of the largest of all known terrestrial vertebrates, possessing the greatest mass of any land animal that can be calculated with reasonable certainty

    From the Argentinosaurus article it sounds like the estimates range from 60-90 tonnes, most likely the Argentinosaurus is heavier but we're more confident about the weight of the Dreadnoughtus.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  17. Soooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soooooo,,, game on?

  18. It wasn't environmentalism ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about someone pointing out that your romantic notion of environmentalism changing American business is bogus.

    American business gave up on whaling for economic reasons, because they could make more dollars elsewhere. Whaling declined in the US due to two major factors. The industrial revolution gave investors and workers more options than going to sea chasing whales, and petrochemical based products replaced whale based products.

    Look at those who are most enthusiastic about whaling today. Its primarily people who think whales are tasty, or one of the few available local foods (very northern latitudes). Americans never developed a real taste for whale, which probably contributed more to the survival of whales species than every environmentalist video put together.

    So while the videos were not necessarily propaganda, many did contain a somewhat accurate portrayal of whaling, they were not terribly important. Americans are not terribly sympathetic about the suffering of animals we think tasty, fortunately for whales we did not develop the taste.

    1. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

      Environmentalism is responsible for the international endangered species protections, which have been the foremost aspect of whale recovery.

      But sure, keep whatever neoliberal fantasies you have. That's not my problem.

    2. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the person with the fantasy is you.

      Endangered species acts have little chance of being enacted, and little chance of being successfully enforced, when the species has a high economic value. Whales once had a high economic value, then they did not. The environment protections occurred after an enormous drop off in whaling due to economic reasons. These environment protections largely affected those who thought whales tasty.

      Want to see the true value of an endangered species act, look at the rhino. It regrettably has a high economic value and it is on the path to extinction despite protective acts.

      Economics is the major determinant in a species future, not environmentalist sympathies.

    3. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      190 tons of meat and blubber is nothing to sneeze at. If there were no protections, someone would turn them all into economy kitty food or whatever.

      We protect things both for feel-good reasons and for economic reasons, so if whales had large economic value they might still have survived much like cows and chickens are doing well despite being tasty.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by pthisis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Want to see the true value of an endangered species act, look at the rhino. It regrettably has a high economic value and it is on the path to extinction despite protective acts.

      The white rhinoceros is one of the biggest success stories in environmental conservation. It was down to about 200 individuals by the late 19th century. Following the imposition of hunting restrictions, populations have rebounded to over 20,000 individuals and it was de-listed as an endangered species under CITES in 1995; limited hunting is now allowed to control population growth.

      The black rhinoceros has recovered significantly as well, from a low of about 2400 to almost 5000 current individuals, and it's been reintroduced into at least 3 countries (Botswana, Malawi, and Zambia) where it had been extinct.

      The Indian rhinoceros has also shown rebounding populations in the wake of conservation efforts.

      The Javan and Sumatran rhinos have seen continuing declines in population, as has the northern white rhino (which is either a separate species or a population of normal white rhinos depending on classification); all 3 are now conservation-dependent. But rhinoceri on the whole have shown remarkable comebacks since the advent of environmental protection laws.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    5. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of words to say "I haven't bothered to research this at all and I'm assuming it didn't work because that fits my worldview"

    6. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I am very happy that they make a comeback. If they recover to a point that they become harvestable resorce, I may get to eat blue whale again.

      "Whale meat again, don't know where, don't know when...."

    7. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your research is a bit shallow and misleading, for example:

      The black rhinoceros has recovered significantly as well, from a low of about 2400 to almost 5000 current individuals, and it's been reintroduced into at least 3 countries (Botswana, Malawi, and Zambia) where it had been extinct.

      "Today, black rhinos remain Critically Endangered because of rising demand for rhino horn, which has driven poaching to record levels. A recent increase in poaching in South Africa threatens to erase our conservation success. The increase is driven by a growing demand from some Asian consumers, particularly in Vietnam, for folk remedies containing rhino horn."

      "“Poaching is a scourge that could wipe out decades of conservation gains made for black rhinos.”
      Matthew Lewis
      African Species Expert"

      http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/black-rhino

      So the World Wildlife Foundation proves my point. Economics trumps Environmentalism.

    8. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of words to say "I haven't bothered to research this at all and I'm assuming it didn't work because that fits my worldview"

      Actually the World Wildlife Foundation proves my point that Economics trumps Environmentalism. Seriously, the only person blinded by the political worldview in this conversation is you.

      "Today, black rhinos remain Critically Endangered because of rising demand for rhino horn, which has driven poaching to record levels. A recent increase in poaching in South Africa threatens to erase our conservation success. The increase is driven by a growing demand from some Asian consumers, particularly in Vietnam, for folk remedies containing rhino horn."

      "“Poaching is a scourge that could wipe out decades of conservation gains made for black rhinos.”
      Matthew Lewis
      African Species Expert"

      http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/black-rhino

    9. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Part of a possible protection for species of high economic value is the definition and protection of property rights. If a dozen whales and their offspring can be owned, the owner makes more money maintaining a herd than killing them all off at once.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny coming from a d-bag who couldn't be bothered to research what LLVM or Clang was and cried about it on this very same site earlier this afternoon.

    11. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      190 tons of meat and blubber is nothing to sneeze at. If there were no protections, someone would turn them all into economy kitty food or whatever.

      I don't think you have worked through the costs involved in whaling. The costs are such that whale meat is a luxury item, not an economy item. I don't think any economy of scale could exist to compete with the existing kitty food protein sources.

    12. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Grammar nazi mode on. "Rhinoceros" is a Greek word, not Latin. So for plural you should either stick to English "rhinoceroses" or use the correct Greek plural "rhinoceros".

    13. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      so if whales had large economic value they might still have survived much like cows and chickens are doing well despite being tasty.

      Or perhaps, more like buffalo have survived. Without economic exploitation they'd probably be gone now. That doesn't mean we should do the same to the whales, but it does suggests that it could be possible.

      It's a lot harder, because the incentive isn't as direct, due to competition. Nobody is running up on your buffalo ranch, killing a multiple-thousand-pound animal, and running off with it. At least, not on any scale.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      The white rhinoceros is one of the biggest success stories in environmental conservation. It was down to about 200 individuals by the late 19th century. Following the imposition of hunting restrictions, populations have rebounded to over 20,000 individuals and it was de-listed as an endangered species under CITES in 1995; limited hunting is now allowed to control population growth.

      That is not true.

      The white rhino was saved due to the efforts of a few visionaries who convinced the South African government and Swaziland, if I recall correctly, to allow the commercial breeding of white rhino (which means for profit, in case you don't understand economics 101). The fact that people, including Mericuns, could hunt them for large sums of money, meant that there was money to protect them and breed them. That's what saved them, not some misguided utopian green agenda.

    15. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by pthisis · · Score: 1

      The white rhino was saved due to the efforts of a few visionaries who convinced the South African government and Swaziland, if I recall correctly, to allow the commercial breeding of white rhino (which means for profit, in case you don't understand economics 101). The fact that people, including Mericuns, could hunt them for large sums of money, meant that there was money to protect them and breed them. That's what saved them

      The timing simply doesn't support this theory as sole or primary driver--the hunting program wasn't launched until 1968. By then conservation measures had already resulted in a tenfold increase in the white rhino population from their turn-of-the-century lows.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
  19. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by jamesborr · · Score: 5, Funny

    But what about flying whales? (or should that be falling ones)... Another thing that got forgotten was the fact that against all probability a sperm whale had suddenly been called into existence several miles above the surface of an alien planet. And since this is not a naturally tenable position for a whale, this poor innocent creature had very little time to come to terms with its identity as a whale before it then had to come to terms with not being a whale any more.

  20. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it's the largest creature to ever walk on land, but that's only because no whale has ever walked on land.

    Except the ambulocetus. Its name even means, "walking whale."

  21. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it's the largest creature to ever walk on land, but that's only because no whale has ever walked on land.

    Disclaimer: I have not done any research to substantiate this claim, and I realize it's impossible to prove a negative, but I'm fairly certain there are no documented cases of walking whales.

    That depends on where you draw the evolutionary line, and say "these are whales."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutchicetus

  22. Blue whales rebound? I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no, not again.

  23. Thank Dow Chemical not Greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Whaling activity really dropped off due to economics not environmentalism. The economics haven't changed. Except for those who think whales are tasty there is not much point to it any longer.

    Thank Standard Oil and Dow Chemical for ending whaling not Greenpeace.

    1. Re:Thank Dow Chemical not Greenpeace by tomhath · · Score: 1

      The economics are changing back. Whaling ended because the big whales were pretty much wiped out; hunting them became too expensive when there weren't any to hunt.

    2. Re:Thank Dow Chemical not Greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whale oil was a superior lamp oil--less smoke. It was also used in cosmetics. We have electricity for light, and the cosmetics industry does fine without whale oil. Baleen was used for corsets. That's just a marginal fashion/fetish now. Once again, it does fine without whale products. There are plenty of other examples. We've been doing without for a real long time now. Switching back to an unsustainable, controversial resource doesn't make sense when you've got something else. I don't see the economics switching back. I'm much more concerned about what might happen to the forests when we run out of oil. When we had steam trains but no oil, the forests were stripped. Guerneville, CA was called stumptown. All the redwoods were cut down for railroad ties. They're mostly back now, but 2nd growth isn't as spectacular as old growth. It's still a tempting target though. When it's a choice between freezing or not, I can see even Californians chopping and burning.

    3. Re:Thank Dow Chemical not Greenpeace by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Whaling ended because the big whales were pretty much wiped out

      No. It ended because there were better alternatives. Norway and Japan do commercial whaling today and these operations are not even close to profitable. Never will be. The product isn't attractive enough to fetch a price making it profitable.

  24. Just by coincidence by scotts13 · · Score: 1

    Japan has just now announced they're resuming whaling for "scientific research" in defiance of a UN ban. They're after minke whales, and a smaller number of fin and humpback whales, not blues... but the timing is odd. Maybe they think Sea Shepherd will be confused, and think they don't have to show up?

  25. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

    The author of the summary is not up to date on the recent release of info on Dreadnoughtus schrani, now believed to be the largest creature to ever have walked on land. See the following:

    http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/September/Dreadnoughtus-Dinosaur/

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/04/world/americas/dreadnoughtus-huge-dinosaur/index.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnoughtus

    Damn Whales, walking on land everywhere. Oh what's that, they swim? And they way three times as much as the Dreadnoughtus? The author of this comment is not up to date...

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
  26. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by chubs · · Score: 1

    Let me be more specific then: no blue whale has ever walked on land. Again, this claim is made without any research done by me.

  27. I'll let you in on something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no increase in whales. What's going on is they are moving out of their normal migration routes to escape Fukushima's radiation flow. It's easy to test by taking a biopsy and testing it for radio nucleotides.

  28. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brought to you by the Shitstartus Maximus.

  29. They should not have announced this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, the Japanese will want to kill and eat them.

  30. We're happy :-) by iq145 · · Score: 1
  31. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor innocent creature?

    Lumpjaw (DeMalthiAzur-of-the-Maizeen ) made the Shift of his own free will. That he was levitating (flying) above the seas of Cachalot was part of the Great Journey, a way to ensure the survival and way of life of the great Catadons.